Another said that, around the White House, "people aren't just sitting around doing soul-searching. They're gaming out the short, medium and long term."

Gaming out.... Am I wrong to hear that as electoral politics?

Advisers also said it will probably take months, if not longer, to develop a strategy for restoring some of the early promise of the Obama presidency, particularly the notion that he was a different kind of Democrat.

In a nod to that ambition, his weekly address Saturday focused on earmark reform, one way, Obama said, of "restoring public trust."

Am I wrong to hear this as a repulsive desire to re-engulf us in a mindless hopey-changey mood? I don't care about a feeling of "promise." I see America's grim sense of reality as a hard-won accomplishment. We're awake now. The dream is over.

Over the next few days, White House officials said they will begin to gauge whether they can forge an alliance with any top Republicans, many of whom are scheduled to attend a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Thursday. Although Obama could benefit from a high-profile compromise - perhaps on extending the Bush-era tax cuts or on other tax initiatives set to expire before the end of the year - officials are also prepared to point out any Republican intransigence.

The medium and long term game plan is the Republicans will screw up enough to take advantage of. The short-term plan is to look willing to so something bipartisan and beneficent.

If he wants to restore public trust, he can repeal stimulus, TARP, and ZeroCare.

Ann Althouse said...

Another said that, around the White House, "people aren't just sitting around doing soul-searching. They're gaming out the short, medium and long term."Gaming out.... Am I wrong to hear that as electoral politics?

The Obama Administration has exempted favored corporations from the requirements of ObamaCare.

If you donate to the campaigns of Democrats, you are exempted from the laws everyone else must follow.

Obama has exempted now 111 companies that have donated to Democrats.

It's going to be hard to convince people he's a different kind of Democrat when he's just as corrupt as all the rest of them.

And now that he has decided not to try Gitmo detainees we can call him Dictator Obama instead of President Obama ... since America is now a dictatorship where Dear Leader has the power to decide whether or not you get a fair trial.

I see America's grim sense of reality as a hard-won accomplishment. We're awake now. The dream is over.

Now that's music to my ears. But I wish we'd start to run with it now:

Kick Oprah to the curb because that's what she sells, and sold, to us for decades. Go after all the charlatans. Clean house.

It seems to be lost on most that, if we went after the fraudsters, we'd turn up all kinds of dirt we didn't count on finding - because they work together. Screw the fears of engaging in a "witch hunt", or "McCarthism", or any of that, and just leave it at the level of "Has this person/entity/industry been honest with America or not?" and, if the answer is "no" kick 'em to the curb or throw 'em in jail. Period. No explanations, no sentimentality, no joke:

End. Their. Run. Now.

I betcha, if that were to happen, we'd be shocked at how fast our country got turned around.

I think Obama sacrificed "the notion that he was a different kind of Democrat" the moment he got the stimulus and then handed it over to Congress to administer. He had sooooo much clout at that point right after his inauguration that he could have set up a bipartisan task force independent of congress and Pelosi/Reid would have just had to have accepted it. But he didn't--he did just what you would have accepted an entrenched partisan president to have done--worked with his party in Congress to completely circumvent the opposition.

I really wish Hillary had been able to squeak out a victory over Obama--she would have been so over the Democratic Party and its leadership that she probably would have felt no need to share any power with Congress, at least in the beginning.

I think Obama sacrificed "the notion that he was a different kind of Democrat" the moment he got the stimulus and then handed it over to Congress to administer.

We're past that, the people have spoken and historically swept Republicans into office to get something done. Republicans rightfully will get all the blame in two years, I hope they don't just plan on doing nothing until then.

"The best thing for the nation will be for Mr. Obama to become a one-term president."

No, the best thing for the nation is to restore law and order and make Barack Obama a half-term president.

The first step in doing that is to investigate, to impeach and to give Barack Obama a fair trial in the United States Senate for the felony crimes he has committed during his first two years in office.

We are not a nation of men. We are a nation of laws. Barack Obama is a criminal. He deserves a fair trial

(Something, it should be pointed out, that he has thus far refused to give to the political prisoners he keeps chained up at his gulag in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).

Am I wrong to hear this as a repulsive desire to re-engulf us in a mindless hopey-changey mood?

I don't think you're wrong. This seems to be Obama's only strategy for dealing with a Republican majority in the House: jump into campaign mode so he can re-energize the base that got him elected in the first place, using his charm and silver oratory. The Demoleft will buy it (notably, Nancy Pelosi, who seems to think if she can keep her strangle-hold on the Dem leadership, the Republicans will screw up enough to make her Speaker again). But this time around, I think they'll be the only ones.

As you said, America is awake now, and in too much trouble to trust all that Obamahooey.

Hey, WE WON! What is it that you do not "get", President Obama? The WE, by the way, is the American People represented by the spirit of the Tea Parties.

Republicans and Democrats now have to realize that business as usual is OVER. Our representatives in Washington DC have to realize that they are going to govern according to Constitutional principles or they are going to be kicked out of office on their butts.

See. Here's the thing. If, by any chance, the House majority gets a bill in front of Obama to sign, chances are, Obama will veto it. This means the House Republicans can do just about anything they want in terms of presenting and voting on bills. If the Senate, controlled by the Dems, doesn't knock the bill down, then Obama will.

Win/win for the House Republicans. They'll say, hey, we did everything we promised to do, and, wouldn't you know it, that bastard in the White House vetoed it. Tsk, tsk.

Gonna be tough for the Dems to run against that.

Meanwhile, down at the state and local level, the Republicans will be laying the groundwork for the future.

And that's what's really gonna hurt you, Garage. But in the meantime, carry on with your hissy-fit.

We Americans have gotten too fat and too soft in several ways: fiscally, physically, emotionally and mentally. That is why Obama was able to get elected. Obama can't fix that because he can't even see it when he views everything thru his handy dandy social justice prism.

When is Obamacare going to be actually repealed as promised? Where is the ban on earmarks as promised? Where are the jobs as promised?

As soon as Nancy Pelosi delivers on the "draining the swamp" that she promised in 2006. Or Obama does on the "hope and change" he promised in 2008. You know, promisses that are now 4 and 2 years overdue at this point, THEN we can worry about what Republicans who haven't even taken office yet have delivered or not.

Honestly the Republicans had 12 years of control in the house and 8 years of total RULE in D.C. They made a complete disaster of the nation in that time. Give Obama a few decades to sort it out.

Not sure how you calculate this. Yes, they had the House for 12 years, and the Presidency for 8. And the Senate for maybe 8 of those years. But that doesn't mean that they had control for 8. They lost the Senate once under Bush when Jumpin Jeffries switched parties, and then the Dems took both Houses in 2006. So, they really only had both Houses and the Presidency at the same time for a bit over 4 years. Which the Dems had the first two years of both Clinton and the first two years of Obama.

The image makers are planning to roll out a Beneficent Obama 2.0. If that is to have a chance, the One will have to get a reputation for telling us the truth on most things. He probably cannot even do that since he has no idea what telling the truth means. Why should he, since the myth of The Brilliant Organizer has never met a reality test before

See. Here's the thing. If, by any chance, the House majority gets a bill in front of Obama to sign, chances are, Obama will veto it.

Oh fuck. I don't recall hearing anything about veto powers, being patient, or waiting until Gitmo is closed, or waiting for Pelosi to drain the swamp, or any of the other excuses I'm hearing. The Tea Party don't seem like patient people, and I don't think they're going to be happy hearing all these excuses.

Advisers also said it will probably take months, if not longer, to develop a strategy for restoring some of the early promise of the Obama presidency, particularly the notion that he was a different kind of Democrat.

I don't think this is going to work. He isn't a different type of Democrat. Rather, he is worse than the average type of Democrat. The problem is that he is so far to the left, that there is little room for him to work with Republicans. How is he going to pull off the post-racial, post-partisan Presidency, when he cut the Republicans out of the discussion of all those major extreme leftist bills that he got through at least one House of Congress? Does he think that he can get the American public to forget about ObamaCare? The Stimulus bill? Cap and Trade? TARP? Giving GM and Chrysler to their unions? All the hopey changey talk in the world isn't going to overcome the reality of what he did when he had the power to do it.

"Over the next few days, White House officials said they will begin to gauge whether they can forge an alliance with any top Republicans, many of whom are scheduled to attend a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Thursday."

Get me re-write:

Over the next few days, White House officials said they will meet with the moles they have planted in the Republican Party, the identities of whom will become apparent when those moles show up to a clandestine meeting at the White House on Thursday.

Tea Party activists will be writing down the names of any Republican moles who show up to that clandestine "bi-partisan" meeting ... so that primary challenges can be launched against those Republicans who seek to step across the aisle to work with the Democrat socialists bent on continuing the destruction of America.

Rand already went back on his Tea Party pledge banning earmarks before he even was sworn into office! I'm sure we'll see a gathering of fiscal patriots "just concerned about money" outside Rand Paul headquarters protesting that?

PB&J/Alex throws out whatever Kos/Puffington tell him. The idea that Republican control of Congress was complete for 12 years and they made "a complete disaster" is ridiculous. It was the current Congress, spending more in 1 year than the last 4 Congresses combined and adding more to the debt that all other Congresses before it combined that created complete disaster.

PS Repeal is not a realistic option before '13, garage. Even you know that.

I don't know if I buy all this soul searching story. I just think these people don't know what they're doing. I think all presidents are playing it by ear a bit, but this administration has no experience from the top down!

The Tea Party don't seem like patient people, and I don't think they're going to be happy hearing all these excuses.

You're right. They're not patient people. They can't wait for November 2012. Then they can finally get rid of the Excuse-Maker-In-Chief and he can start looking for some to ghostwrite his NEXT book about himself entitled: "The Audacity of Throwing People Under the Bus"...or maybe it will be "Dreams of Dystopia"...or "One Born Every Minute: How Barack Obama Became President" (dedicated to his supporters, natch)....or maybe it will be something new and original like "ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME by Barack Obama.

Granted I am not so great on debate etiquette, but shouldn't you wait until the Republicans actually take control of the House to start shrieking like a banshee that the dirty tea partiers haven't done anything?

Am I the only one worried about Garbage? I mean, his always tenuous grasp on current reality appears to be slipping rapidly away.

If he starts ranting and yelling this way and wanders into traffic I worried about the outcome. I don't care if he's convinced that a hurtling 3000 pound automobile really can't hurt him, he's just as wrong about that as he is in his other flights of fantasy.

Advisers also said it will probably take months, if not longer, to develop a strategy...

I have to laugh at how incompetent that sounds--months of planning. At which point all the base assumptions will have changed and the plans will be useless.

They're admitting they have no idea how to improvise or think on their feet. If something isn't planned for months in advance, Obama and his hand picked team have no idea how to deal with it. And this man is President!

I accidentally came across a page on narcissism the other day. It's quite relevant to the Obama administration.

Narcissists can put in a shocking amount of time to very little effect. This is partly because they have so little empathy that they don't know why some work is valued more highly than other work, why some people's opinions carry more weight than others'.

They do know that you're supposed to work and not be lazy, so they keep themselves occupied. But they are not invested in the work they do -- whatever they may produce is just something they have to do to get the admiration and power they crave. Since this is so, they really don't pay attention to what they're doing, preferring the easiest thing at every turn, even though they may be constantly occupied, so that narcissists manage to be workaholics and extremely lazy at the same time.

Narcissists measure the worth of their work only by how much time they spend on it, not by what they produce. They want to get an A for Effort. Narcissists lack empathy, so they don't know what others value or why. Narcissists tend to value things in quantitative ways and in odd quantities at that -- they'll tell you how many inches of letters they received, but not how many letters or from how many correspondents; they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Lacking "empathy, so they don't know what others value" sounds right.

"whatever they may produce is just something they have to do to get the admiration and power they crave." Yep

Seems to me the world leaders dont want anything to do with Obama because he's a feckless, ignorant, and narssistic idio.

Now, as I understand his tortured prose, Mr house is suggesting that the November 2 election was a referendum on republicans? really!You do live in a bizarre world, Harry--really bizarre. Interesting analysis there Mr H--Mr Obama has been sized up by world leaders and has been found wanting.

And as was pointed out, Mr Biden is second in line, Mr Boehner is is actually third. Facts have never been your strong suit harry.

Jesus, garage, you're not funny, and. let's face it, just not sane. You think your one note samba is some kind of biting satire, but it really just bites the big one. Please think of a new angle or take your bat and ball and go home.

I don't know, it sure seems easy being a Republican. You can tell your supporters you are against earmarks, tell the voters you will ban earmarks, and then before you're even swore in you announce you will keep earmarks. Oh well. Maybe libtards were right when they said it's really not about the money at all.

I don't know, it sure seems easy being a Republican. You can tell your supporters you are against earmarks, tell the voters you will ban earmarks, and then before you're even swore in you announce you will keep earmarks. Oh well. Maybe libtards were right when they said it's really not about the money at all.

garage, got anything to say?

Apparently not.

You're just enjoying being annoying.

Why don't you STU if you don't have anything to say? Cause right now, you don't.

Then of course we have McConnell pleading with us to keep these wasteful earmark pet projects "The problem is, it doesn't save any money," when we're trying to balance the budget. Tsk tsk.

I was sure you'd fail, and you didn't disappoint me. First, Rand Paul, whatever he said, is an incoming freshman senator and he can't "announce" anything binding on the leadership. Second, you truncated the McConnell quote, dishonestly I might add.You don't have the courage to include the complete quote You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.

...officials are also prepared to point out any Republican intransigence.

The phrase "Republican intransigence" seems inapt here. The voters spoke pretty definitively in this election. No more Obama-esque initiatives and repeal or fix the ones already passed.

If Obama & co. don't go along with repeal of Obamacare, technically speaking, isn't it the Democrats who must wear the shameful horns of intransigence? And if Obama continues to propose new expansions of the federal government's authority in the face of the last election's clear mandate, wouldn't that also be Obama's "intransigence?"

Why does our journalistic language always presume the Democrats are trying to move us forward? Obamacare is seriously retro, almost anachronistic, in my view. It was a giant step backward. Those who opposed it for those reasons, were we intransigent? Can you be intransigent against regression? Or are those taking us backwards the intransigent ones?

Maybe for the time being, when the very idea of "progressive" is in dispute, journos should start using more neutral terms like stalemate or impasse, or when talking about one party versus another, words like "opposition" or "disagreement" or "differences of opinion."

The sentence in the story would seem much less fraught if it read:

Although Obama could benefit from a high-profile compromise - perhaps on extending the Bush-era tax cuts or on other tax initiatives set to expire before the end of the year - officials are also prepared to point out any Republican differences of opinion.

It doesn't seem so nasty. In fact, it would seems silly for Obama to even have to "point it out," since the party has already acknowledged its differences of opinion. But the way the story's written, "Republican intransigence" is like some kind of periodic illness that afflicts the GOP and causes them to lose their minds -- and something that despite the GOP's big win, the voters somehow still don't like.

My sense is, the GOP's popularity rises the more "intransigent" they are. The more agreeable they are with the Democrats, the lower they sink in the polls. Obama fighting Republican intransigence is therefore, also unpopular. Obama's smartest political play, if he only understood it, is to facilitate Republican intransigence.

...officials are also prepared to point out any Republican intransigence.

The phrase "Republican intransigence" seems inapt here. The voters spoke pretty definitively in this election. No more Obama-esque initiatives and repeal or fix the ones already passed.

If Obama & co. don't go along with repeal of Obamacare, technically speaking, isn't it the Democrats who must wear the shameful horns of intransigence?

Why does our journalistic language presume the Democrats are trying to move us forward? Obamacare is seriously retro, almost anachronistic, in my view. Those who opposed it for those reasons, were we intransigent? Can you be intransigent against retrogression? Or are those taking us backwards the intransigent ones?

Maybe for the time being, when the very idea of "progressive" is in dispute, journos should start using more neutral terms like stalemate or impasse, or when talking about one party versus another, words like "opposition" or "disagreement" or "differences of opinion."

The sentence in the story would seem much less fraught if it read:

Although Obama could benefit from a high-profile compromise - perhaps on extending the Bush-era tax cuts or on other tax initiatives set to expire before the end of the year - officials are also prepared to point out any Republican differences of opinion.

It doesn't seem so nasty. In fact, it would seems silly for Obama to even have to "point it out," since the party has already acknowledged its differences of opinion. But the way the story's written, "Republican intransigence" is like some kind of periodic illness that afflicts the GOP and causes them to lose their minds -- and something that despite the GOP's big win, the voters somehow still don't like.

My sense is, the GOP's popularity rises the more "intransigent" they are. The more agreeable they are with the Democrats, the lower they sink in the polls. Obama fighting Republican intransigence is therefore, also unpopular. Obama's smartest political play, if he only understood it, is to facilitate Republican intransigence.

...officials are also prepared to point out any Republican intransigence.

The phrase "Republican intransigence" seems inapt here. The voters spoke pretty definitively in this election. No more Obama-esque initiatives and repeal or fix the ones already passed.

If Obama & co. don't go along with repeal of Obamacare, technically speaking, isn't it the Democrats who must wear the shameful horns of intransigence?

Why does our journalistic language presume the Democrats are trying to move us forward? Obamacare is seriously retro, almost anachronistic, in my view. Those who opposed it for those reasons, were we intransigent? Can you be intransigent against retrogression? Or are those taking us backwards the intransigent ones?

Maybe for the time being, when the very idea of "progressive" is in dispute, journos should start using more neutral terms like stalemate or impasse, or when talking about one party versus another, words like "opposition" or "disagreement" or "differences of opinion."

The sentence in the story would seem much less fraught if it read:

Although Obama could benefit from a high-profile compromise - perhaps on extending the Bush-era tax cuts or on other tax initiatives set to expire before the end of the year - officials are also prepared to point out any Republican differences of opinion.

It doesn't seem so nasty. In fact, it would seems silly for Obama to even have to "point it out," since the party has already acknowledged its differences of opinion.

I was sure you'd fail, and you didn't disappoint me. First, Rand Paul, whatever he said, is an incoming freshman senator and he can't "announce" anything binding on the leadership. Second, you truncated the McConnell quote, dishonestly I might add.You don't have the courage to include the complete quote You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.

It's even easier being a Democrat. All you have to do is keep throwing money at problems (and you can invent "problems" like the lack of high speed rail between Milwaukee and Madison if need be), and if things don't work out you just say that you didn't spend enough.

@John Stoddard, excellent analysis. Just because one uses words such as "progressive" and "reform" doesn't mean that actual progress has been made or that the system as "reformed" is better than it was pre-reform.

Don't be too hard on garage. He's still heartbroken over losing his choo-choo train to Milwaukee.

There just appears to be so much confusion about the rail project, grossly misleading and just plain wrong facts. And for some reason the group that is consistently wrong about facts and figures always seems to be from the right wing.

There just appears to be so much confusion about the rail project, grossly misleading and just plain wrong facts. And for some reason the group that is consistently wrong about facts and figures always seems to be from the right wing.

What makes Obama/Pelosi/Reid even MORE retro is that every policy they have attempted to implement has been tried - and FAILED - before. Whether it's attempting to implement a command-control economy, Keynesian stimulus, social engineering or anything else they've done. Been there. Done that. It failed. That's why EVERY country in the world is moving away from it except TWO: Venezuela and the United States.

So who are the REAL "progressives"? The ones who are trying to move beyond the proven failures of Leftist policies, or the ones who are intent on dragging us kicking and screaming into implementing more of them?

ahhh yes. tax cuts. if you don't have anything to say, then say tax cuts. the magic elixir.

You have a point there. But then the real problem is that tax cuts are never accompanied by spending cuts, whether by Democrats or Republicans. The wind is blowing in a different direction now. While it might be nice to have a little more money in my paycheck, the real benefit to less government spending is that it then has less wherewithal to screw with me and my freedom.

I mean, January 2003-January 2006 was just four years. There were a few more months at the beginning of 2001, between Cheney becoming VP and Jeffords defecting to the Democratic caucus. Then not even a second between March 1930 and December 2000. So not even five whole years of uncontested control in the last eight decades combined, and you're spewing nonsense about eight years of "total RULE".

Can anyone tell me what time Monday night Obama is holding the press conference to announce all the trade agreements he negotiated on his $2 billion road trip?

They already announced a 10 billion dollar, 54,000 new job trade deal with India on his first day. Meanwhile, Republicans announced they are killing 10,000 jobs in just two states. And that 2 billion dollar figure you mentioned is, well, pretty whack.

One thing I learned from writing my prior post: There is an "n" nestled in the middle of intransigent I never noticed before. Thank you, Safari, for spellchecking my online mutterings.

Political issues are settled by relative strength within the government. There is no obligation by either side to be un-intransigent. Obama's spokespersons would like everyone to forget that their struggle to pass legislation in 2009-10 was their inability to get the crucial final Democratic votes without compromising. The Republicans weren't "intransigent" -- they were irrelevant, at least until Scott Brown's election.

Perhaps what Obama's really saying is that he plans to point it out when the Republicans exercise the power the voters gave them. Shame on the GOP for thinking the election gave them relevance or power. As the left's leading pundits have been saying for 10 days, Obama should ignore the Republicans! He should do exactly as he would have done before the election, indeed he should compromise even less, and if the Republicans don't hand over their votes at the appointed hour, shame on them! Shame on their intransigence!

POTUS is basically not a very hard working president. I predict we will see a flurry of White House activity over the next 2-3 weeks then it will be relatively quiet until after the Super Bowl. Not having to listen to his blatherings will be good for the country.

Damn big of President Obama to suddenly be concerned about earmarks now that Republicans will control the House....

He's not concerned about them now either. This is just another case of Obama's "Me Too"-ism.

"Oh, is that popular? Well, I've always been for that. What do you mean I signed billions of dollars of earmarks into law? Let me be perfectly clear...I have always been against the earmarks which I personally signed. Because those Republicans were sipping Slurpees while I was denouncing earmarks and signing them. And we were down in the dirt figuring out which public union needed federal money the most and Republicans were saying 'Give us back the keys.' And we're saying 'No. There are more union pensions to fund.' But I've gotten the message from the shellacking: the American people are finally joining me in my steadfast opposition to all the earmarks I signed. They have always been wrong, and I have always been against them. We don't need to relitigate the past by bringing up the fact that I signed them, and that's not what the American people want. The American people want their chocolate rations increased, and that's what I have done since Day One!"

The Tea Party are a non ideological fiscally concerned group of citizens that are only concerned about the SPENDING, so I assume they are applauding Obama and his decision to work with republicans to eliminate all earmarks. And, stage a small protest against the republicans that for keeping earmarks. right?

Republicans were able to co-opt Tea Party types because Republicans are the larger faction in American politics that represents less government.

You'll never side with the Tea Partiers or the Republicans because, deep inside, you think money sort of kind of grows on trees and that increasing tax rates has no effect on wealth creation. How could it, when you just pluck the stuff from branches?

I expect Obama to work with the Republicans just as hard as the Republicans worked with Obama.

Consistent with what I said above, Obama has a perfect right NOT to work with the Republicans. I wouldn't even call him intransigent if he did. He doesn't agree with them. He owes them nothing.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if he made the purely political calculation that on economic and fiscal issues, he should see what accommodation he can work out. It worked well for the GOP to be "party of no." It might not work out as well for Obama.

The phrase we will continue to hear applied to Obama is "tone-deaf." I also think this is journalistic laziness. He knew where he stood politically and, I would submit, didn't care. He might have thought he could avoid the consequences, but he was willing to accept them.

Both sides were intransigent in 09-10. Both benefited from taking that stance, but in different ways. The Dems changed the country, dramatically. The GOP won a big election victory. If we're lucky, the next two years will be serious and fact-based as each side tries to persuade the public to support them in '12. It makes me feel some relief to believe that will happen.

WV: mihug As in, here is my hug of all of you: ((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Be interesting to see how Obama could cooperate less with the Republicans than he has in the past two years. He has done zip about cooperating with them so far. He says he wants to cooperate but his idea of cooperating is for them to throw their ideas away and agree with him totally. No cooperation there at all.

Jim said... I expect Obama to work with the Republicans just as hard as the Republicans worked with Obama.

And I expect Democrats to have the same results in 2012 that they did in 2012 by continuing to pretend that Republicans don't matter.

Remind me again how long it took to have a meeting with Senator McConnell?

Three days, counting from Tuesday, January 20 (Inauguration Day).

From the NYT's "The Caucus" blog for Friday, January 23, 2009:Yes, that was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell preaching the gospel of bipartisanship at a speech in Washington on Friday. And in case his remarks left anyone in the audience scratching their heads, Mr. McConnell advised them to suspend their disbelief.

“I realize that if you told most people Mitch McConnell was down at the National Press Club hoping for bipartisanship, they’d tell you that’s like an insurance agent hoping for an earthquake,” he said. “Most people don’t exactly view me as the Mr. Rogers of the Senate.”

Fresh from a meeting at the White House with President Obama, Mr. McConnell said he was ready to work with the White House, starting by hammering out an agreement on an economic stimulus package that he said should be ready for the president’s signature next month.

“Everybody believes that government action is necessary,” Mr. McConnell said. “This is coming out of the mouth of someone who doesn’t normally advocate government action as a first resort.”

And Fen, et al.: I only hoped for reciprocity. It's only your guilty conscience as conservatives that makes you interpret reciprocity as obstructionism.

2. Because Obama was president and because Democrats had large majorities in the House and Senate, Obama and the Democrats did not need Republican support to pass laws.

3. Obama and the Democrats did pass laws.

4. In a recent election, Republicans got a majority in the House and made a big gain in the Senate.

A reasonable person would conclude from this information that voters did not like the results that Obama and the Democrats produced when governing, and that Republicans were right not to cooperate in the production of said bad results.

You are again being a lunkhead. It's not about cooperation. It's not about tone. Nobody gives a fuck about those things.

Arlen Specter ratted out the Republican Senators position against bipartisanship on Fox News Sunday, December 27, 2009:

Senator DeMint is the author of the famous statement that [health care reform] is going to be President Obama's Waterloo, that this ought to be used to break the president, so that before the ink was dry on the oath of office -- and I know this because I was in the caucus -- the Republicans were already plotting ways to beat President Obama in 2012.

Now, effective government in a democracy relies upon some bipartisanship, but there simply isn't any. And the process which was used was not good. The lead story today in the Washington Post is that after you reform health care, you ought to reform the Senate. And I would start with the process.

Get off your high horse, dude. Spare us all the bleat about how Democrats want to help people and all that bullshit. People don't want the help. They want jobs. They want an end to deficits. They want an end to runaway entitlements and massive public sector growth. Your side got voted out in a huge way.

People like "former law student" think a law about health insurance policy is a moral prerogative. That's why "Jesus Christ Himself (sic)" might actually come down from on high and support a health insurance bill.

To others of us a health insurance law is only about who might pay for medical services. It's simply a matter of "money" and in no way reflects "morals".

The "morality" of a law about health insurance creates the inability of the-religiously-devout-Leftists to depart from their orthodoxy. And it's why invoking Jesus Christ in this argument makes sense to a Leftist who sits in the front pew like "FLS".

(That and he/she/it thinks an appeal to religion will somehow silence conservatives -- who are all Bible thumping yahoos as everybody knows.)

If real unemployment was well over 10 percent, the federal debt was incoherently large, American foreign policy was a mess and American global dominance fading, the dollar was down while at the same time American manufacturing was making no apparent gains, and there was a huge and lasting recession, I would hope that my fellow Americans would join me in kicking President Jesus's ass to the curb.

I'm tired of conservatives shitting on a plate and serving it as supper.

So when the Republicans take over majorities in the Senate and the presidency as well, you will of course get in line and DEMAND that Democrats vote for dismantling the departments of Education and Energy, instituting drastic cuts to welfare programs, repealing ObamaCare and all the other items on Republican wishlists, right?

According to your "logic," Democrats would be REQUIRED to vote for these things despite the fact that they are anathema to their political viewpoints.

Not unsurprisingly, a Democrat's idea of "bipartisanship" ALWAYS involves whining like schoolgirls when Republicans won't vote against their OWN ideology while simultaneously NEVER considering voting against their own when the shoe is on the other foot.

No thanks. We've had quite enough of your demands for bipartisanship. Maybe when you're ACTUALLY serious about compromise we can talk, but nobody is holding their breath waiting for that to happen.

Heh, Jim at 9:06 PM nailed the chronic speciousness of Obamaspeak. Well done. Those are the kinds of rhetorical loops he's always expected us to accept-- nay, applaud-- just because they're conveyed in His pompous drone.

Ok. I'll bite. Show me one time in history when tax cuts cut the deficit. I'll just sit over here and wait you out. I got all day.

Um, how about in 1997?The agreement cuts net taxes by about $95 billion, most of which is concentrated in a $500- per-child tax credit for families with children. The legislation also reduces capital gains taxes from 28 to 20 percent for most assets held for 18 months, and provides tax breaks for retirement savings, home sales and inheritances.

Guess what, federal revenues went up.

Um, how about in 2006? You know, after people like you said the Bush tax cuts would drain revenue?

WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

See that? Corporate tax revenues tripled after the tax cut.

Are you really this ignorant?

This is very, very recent history.

As an additional point, the unemployment rate was 4.6% and federal revenues were increasing when Pelosi & Reid took over Congress.

So the same exact people who wanted all their fellow Americans to have health care in 2008 don't want them to have it now, and the same exact people who wanted tax cuts for families making less than 250K a year in 2008 want tax cuts for $250K and up earners now? Only one possible explanation: the modern Republican credo:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'

So the same exact people who wanted all their fellow Americans to have health care in 2008 don't want them to have it now,

Could you point us to the campaign speech or speeches by Obama/Pelosi/Reid where they say they are running on a platform of "health care reform" that involves: a health care mandate, a tax on "caddilac" plans, 2000 page legislation that the speaker said we would find out what was in it after it passses, and a resulting 20-40% insurance premium increases with some plans going away all together.

I'd love to see that.

It is always fun when you leftists pretend that what was enacted is what was actually talked about in the campaign.